Talk:Planar rift
Ambiguous target "If a player character wields a weapon with this property, the planar rift will kill the character (no save)." this is interesting... if somewhat ambiguous. which character -- the wielder, or the creature hit? if the wielder, does this appear to be by design? 22:57, September 5, 2010 (UTC) *The Player Character wielding a weapon with this property is instantly killed...reading the script itself, it's definitely by design. This property was never intended for use on a PC item (it's way too powerful), appearing in the game only for use with the black blade of disaster spell. :nwn@amethyst-dragon.com 03:37, September 6, 2010 (UTC) * I had intentionally only mentioned one character (the wielder) in that sentence to avoid ambiguity, and furthermore referred to the target as "creature" rather than "character" for the same reason. Not good enough? (I suppose splitting the paragraph would be justified, as the effect on PC-wielders is not really part of the definition of the property.) --The Krit 18:45, September 6, 2010 (UTC) DC I think the DC for this might be wrong. Someone needs to check this. I will when I get a chance.Dremble 16:44, September 15, 2010 (UTC) *DC is correct, you can set up the caster level on that item property in toolset. Its the caster level of the item. ShaDoOoW 19:42, September 15, 2010 (UTC) :*I went back to check this while playing HOTU. The DC check for death is 17, when summoned by a level 24 sorcerer. I have no idea how it gets to be that. It looks like it should be 34. The DC appears to be (10 + Caster Level)/2. Note that this was against undead who should have been immune to the death magic, but apparently aren't immune to the planar rift. That might be where the 1/2 comes from. Dremble 23:11, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::* Your level 24 sorcerer may have cast black blade of disaster, but planar rift was cast by the sword wielded by the summons. (As ShaDoOoW said, it is the caster level of the item that matters; your sorcerer's level is irrelevant.) To see the caster level of planar rift, you have to look at the sword's item properties. For the standard BBoD sword, the caster level is 6. --The Krit 03:23, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :* Come to think of it, aren't DCs usually based on spell level, not caster level? (And this would be the level of planar rift; the level of the spell cast by someone's sorcerer would be as irrelevant as that sorcerer's caster level.) Either way something seems to be off, since the innate level of planar rift is 3, and adding 3 for being cast by an item (in lieu of an ability modifier) still does not get up to 17. Something else I am missing?--The Krit 03:35, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::* Got it. This item got caught in limbo somewhere during development, or BioWare decided to hack something. Short version: the caster level of the standard BBoD sword is 7, even though the Toolset reports it as 6. DC is 10 + caster level = 17. ::: Long version: The standard BBoD sword has an "On-hit: cast spell" property with the wrong cost table reference stored in its blueprint. For this item, this item only, and in fact for only this singular item property on this item, the reported item property level of planar rift is a reference to spell level (0 to 9), rather than caster level (1 to 40). However, when used in the game, the GetCasterLevel() function assumes the cost table means caster level, so the reported "Level 6" (being the seventh spell level when you count zero) becomes caster level 7, hence the DC of 17. This might have been a botched hack attempt to make the DC be 10 + BBoD spell level, or maybe the item was created while BioWare was still deciding how to implement planar rift. Either way, if you create a new planar rift item property (on a copy of the standard BBoD or elsewhere), you'll see caster levels for the cost parameter, so it is just this one special case. --The Krit 18:02, November 1, 2010 (UTC) Location Since this is only used with the Black Blade of Disaster summon and that is already separated from the spell. I suggest combining the Planar RIft entry into the Black Blade of Disaster(Summon) entry.Dremble 23:14, October 7, 2010 (UTC) * A primary reason I created this article was that it is not only used with the BBoD summon. The summon's sword has been known to appear as random loot in the Inifinite Dungeons module, and people had been coming to the NWN forums wondering why their PCs kept dying. This article can also be useful for builders who see this property in the Toolset and are wondering what it does. --The Krit 03:29, October 8, 2010 (UTC) SR note Shouldn't the non-associate note be phrased automatic success instead of automatic failure? The -1 return for the 4 user type negates (!) to 0 just like a success, which is the opposite of a feat which returns 0 negating to 1. 05:22, January 21, 2013 (UTC) * No. The caster rolls the die. A -1 return value negates to 0, which is not just like success. Successfully overcoming spell resistance is indicated by a zero return value, which negates to nonzero. --The Krit (talk) 07:31, January 21, 2013 (UTC) :* And you wrote the spell resistance check is failed, not that the caster failed to penetrate the target's spell resistance. The spell resistance check succeeds when the penetration fails. Which is why ResistSpell() is typically always negated. 14:30, January 21, 2013 (UTC) ::* Same thing. If the caster rolls a spell resistance check and fails, then the caster failed to penetrate the target's spell resistance. If the caster fails to penetrate the target's spell resistance, then the caster had rolled a spell resistance check and failed. ResistSpell() is typically negated because it returns FALSE if the check succeeds (meaning the spell is not resisted). This may seem backwards, but that is only when taking a game mechanics view. If you take a scripting mechanics view, then ResistSpell() is called to find out if a spell should be stopped, similar to how FortitudeSave(), ReflexSave(), and WillSave() are called to see if a spell should be stopped (or reduced in effect). This is not the same as the check succeeding. --The Krit (talk) 15:32, January 21, 2013 (UTC) :::* The in-game report for a working SR check is to give one failure message and three success messages (penetration roll, immunity, and mantle). The penetration roll, which is what you are looking at, is never made in a -1 return, and even if it were, it would only be one part of the SR check. ResistSpell() is not backwards, it gives the same message as what the player sees before him. The caster does not roll to resist the spell, he rolls to penetrate any spell resistance. The target resists the spell if the mantle or immunity shield him or if he has spell resistance and the penetration roll fails. 16:05, January 21, 2013 (UTC) ::::* OK, let's go with in-game text. Here is an in-game spell resistance report (admittedly not from planar rift) pulled from the log of a game: "Skeleton Warrior attempts to resist spell : failure". Yes, this says "failure", but no, it does not state that the check failed. It states that resisting the spell failed. The target failing to resist the spell is another way to say that the caster successfully overcame spell resistance. This is determined by a check, which involves the caster -- not the target -- rolling a die. Since the caster rolls, the check's success/failure is the caster's success/failure. ::::: In a duel with exactly one victor, one person's success is the other person's failure. Spell resistance fails when the spell resistance check succeeds. Spell resistance succeeds when the spell resistance check fails. The automatic failure mentioned in the article is failure of the check, and that is accurate. --The Krit (talk) 15:40, January 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::*The meaning of a "check" entails that success is when the condition checked for is satisfied, and failure is when it is not. Thus a skill check is successful when the skill is sufficient to accomplish its purpose, and a spell resistance check is successful when the spell is resisted. Whether or not this bodes well for either party is not a factor. For instance, in the medical profession, one would "test" positive for an ailment if they had the ailment, even though having an ailment is bad news for the patient, and might not even be good news for the doctor. However, the reason you have for putting it the opposite way in this context is because of a die roll that is never made. Yet, there should be a distinction between whether the roll is failed or never made at all, because failure implies that mantles and immunity were checked first in order to get to the roll, and if a mantle were checked then it would be reduced (unless the spell checked against didn't apply). 16:51, January 26, 2013 (UTC) ::::::* The name of a check is not necessarily the exact condition checked for. For example, a skill check does not check for the presence of a skill, but for the use of a skill. Yet the name of the check is "skill check", not "skill use check". Extraneous words can be dropped from the name of a check when there is no risk of confusion with other checks. Similarly, a spell resistance check does not check for the presence of spell resistance, but for the overcoming of spell resistance. The name is not "overcoming spell resistance check" because extraneous words can be dropped from the name of a check when there is no risk of confusion with other checks. The distinction between a failed roll and no roll is relevant to the internal operation of ResistSpell(), but I fail to see the relevance to the direction of the check. (The no-roll possibility appears to be completely neutral as far as determining the direction of the check is concerned, so does not counter the possibility of a die roll.) The "bodes well" part of what you wrote is a fallacy (straw man) that is better avoided. --The Krit (talk) 18:28, January 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::::* Inventing grammatical rules? "x check" is not the same as "check for x", They both come from the sentence structure "I am checking x for y." If y is not provided it is assumed "I am checking x for its ability to perform its intended use." x is functioning as the the direct object of the sentence not the object of the preposition. This is not a case of extraneous word omission, it is a case of sentence diagramming. A "skill use check" would check the ability for a skill to be used when it is called. While there can be vagueness in the intended use, it is never to the degree where failure and success are reversed. As for the "bodes well," you introduced to your reasoning the condition "in a duel with exactly one victor" limiting the scope to two parties, which is not relevant to determining the use within the sentence, and I gave an example of a two party system in which having a "victor" was not satisfied yet success and failure (positive and negative) could easily be determined. 19:43, January 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::::* So... if a patient tests positive for an ailment, which would be an ailment check (e.g. "allergy test"), then "x" represents "ailment", and the term "ailment check" comes from the sentence "I (the doctor) am checking the ailment for its ability to perform its intended use"? No mention of the patient at all? That doesn't look right to me. You're missing something in your explanation. You misunderstand my reference to a duel. In fact, you left the stated confines of that reference. First off, that was not a statement about checks, but about perspective. In the specific case of spell resistance, the target of a spell would see the question of whether or not his resistance would stand, while the caster would see the question of whether or not his spell would have an effect. The same question, really, but viewed from opposite perspectives, which reverses "success" and "failure". (So "success" and "failure" depends on whose perspective you use when defining the check.) Secondly, yes, if you violate the part about "exactly one winner" -- such as finding a two-party system without a "victor" -- then my statement no longer applies. (And third, that is not necessarily a two-party system, as the disease can be seen as a third involved party.) --The Krit (talk) 20:49, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::::* No, a "test for x" is not an "x test". "Test for x" is "I am testing for x", while "x test" is "I am testing x for its ability to perform its intended use". Thus you would do a "blood test," but you would "test for malaria." Whichever "test" or "check" is used, there is a success circumstance and a failure circumstance because the "for ..." part is always at least implicitly defined. As I have already stated, the sentence structure already defines what to consider success and failure, so perspective is meaningless as it is not considered. 05:21, January 29, 2013 (UTC) :::::::* Regarding your claim that "x test" is not a test for "x": A purity test is a test for purity. A pregnancy test is a test for being pregnant. A parental test is a test for being a parent. A drug test is a test for the presence of drugs, and on the flip side a sobriety test is a test for sobriety (an example fitting the duality of perspective I brought up earlier). Also, despite your statement to the contrary, a malaria test is a test for malaria (just like an allergy test is a test for allergies, as I mentioned earlier). :::::::: Regarding your claim that an "x test" must be a test for "x" being able to perform its intended use: A DNA test is a test to identify/compare DNA, with (usually) no interest in the DNA's functionality. A litmus test uses litmus as the testing agent, not the thing being tested. A road test is named for where the test occurs, not what is being tested. Sometimes an "x test" is a test for "x" being able to perform its intended use, but that is not the only possibility. :::::::: I am not inventing grammatical rules. These are widely-used phrases that do not fit your claims as to the only possible meaning of "x test". --The Krit (talk) 18:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC) * +1. Current wording makes no sense. To affect a target by a spell, target must fail to spell resistance (check). This matches what the game reporting - "Someone attempts to resist spell: failed" and this is printed to both caster and target. When the target is not affected, this message prints succeeded. -- 06:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) * Since the commentary has died down, I'll go ahead and update the article along the lines I was thinking of when I posted 15:40, January 26, 2013 (UTC). (I see nothing in the discussion that followed that would suggest an objection to this update, only an insistence on determining if the current phrasing is wrong or right.) --The Krit (talk) 21:23, February 19, 2013 (UTC)